Poland stands to lose over $1 billion transit fees. How does crossing one's territory add value to a product? Could the country that charges these fees still be called a free market?

5:03 pm November 9, 2011

b wrote:

This piece is not nothing more than a sign of frustration. The opponents of the Nord Stream have fought it long and hard, but they lost in the end. On the geopolitical grand chess board, transit countries like Poland and Ukraine are supposed to form a buffer zone between Russia and Europe. Basically, they are used as a spigot that can be turned on and off remotely and the switch is not located in Moscow or Berlin....Naturally, this situation did not sit well with the Russians and Germans.

5:37 pm November 9, 2011

Johnny wrote:

And now the countdown begins until Russia's famous focus on safety above all else results in an ecological disaster in the Baltic.

6:46 pm November 9, 2011

Texas wrote:

Poland is developing shale gas reserves and soon after
Gazprom will be completely irrelevant to the country's
energy supply. The coming reality doesn't sit well with Kremlin.
There is nothing Russia can do about the fact that it's natural gas
cash cow is about to end.

The truth is that all third world countries like Russia squander natural
resources wealth sooner or later without developing a modern economy.

7:44 pm November 9, 2011

a wrote:

Baltic Sea is an ecological disaster. To build this pipeline old munitions and mustard gas (mostly dumped by the Germans and the British) had to be cleaned off the floor.

Poland wants to wreck her country with earthquakes, poisoned wells, sinkholes, gas leaks, and brain cancer on a costly and unprofitable enterprise because it is in their interests. Or because their American "friends" told them it was.

11:42 pm November 9, 2011

Mike in Prague wrote:

Well, certainly the old Soviet Union was the #1 polluter in the Baltic
region. Soviet ecological disasters were common, and Soviet engineering
proved it's worth with the Chernobyl disaster.

Regardless, new fracking technology will not only enable Poland to develop it's
domestic energy capacity in an environmentally feasible manner; it will also decimate Gazprom
and open up a new European energy supply.

Europeans simply don't want to be involved in Russian spats over energy.

3:45 am November 10, 2011

I wrote:

to "a" you have no idea what you talking about. Soviets never paid any transit fees to Poland.

10:55 am November 10, 2011

Juha Vihainen wrote:

Now we see who the principal authority on Nord Stream is (and all along was). Germans and Russians would have done wisely to heed Mr. Sikorski's advice and cancelled the whole thing. Now it looks like Poland resents the fact that Nord Stream is indeed irrelevant to its interests. If Poland is so self-sufficient in gas, why the fuss?

8:16 pm November 10, 2011

c wrote:

such a long and complicated pipeline might be prone to accidents under water

12:00 am November 11, 2011

F wrote:

"a" wrote:

"Poland wants to wreck her country with earthquakes, poisoned wells, sinkholes, gas leaks, and brain cancer on a costly and unprofitable enterprise because it is in their interests. Or because their American “friends” told them it was."

This kind of nonsense is seldom seen in WSJ. I would describe it as verbal pollution.

1:19 am November 11, 2011

ElRoz wrote:

Clearly Poland is missing out on more than just hundreds of millions - billions - in possible revenue from Russian gas transit to Europe: 55 bcm by late 2012 is an impressive amount and would have brought Poland needed cash. Too bad the Polish politicians stuck fighting the ghosts of the past are missing out on helping their country today. Poland could have been hosting these pipelines had they shown some political will in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As Nord Stream is showing Russia, Germany, and EU will cooperate just fine without any active Polish role. Instead of paying high prices for Russian gas, Poland could have been offsetting them with transit fees to go along the Yamal-Europe. And when the South Stream goes online, Poland and Ukraine will sit there and watch billions in transit fees pass them by.

1:27 am November 11, 2011

Frank Conn wrote:

Sounds like this article is trying to do what Polish politicians have been trying to do: pretend all is well, and the big powers cannot do without Poland. Meanwhile money, history, and influence are passing them by. When Poland joined NATO and EU, it thought the country would finally play an active role. But to play an active role, you need clear pragmatic heads. The costs of missed opportunities will be going up with every 1000 cubic meters of gas goes through North Stream's first, second, and maybe 3rd lines: so that would be around 80 bcm a year for three lines? Wow. And what when the Southern Stream goes through eventually? Poland and Ukraine can then console each other about the "waste of money"...in fact it is a waster of opportunity for them. Just like with 2003 invasion of Iraq, Poland bet on US instead of Germany and Russia.

9:28 am November 11, 2011

Franky wrote:

Poland missing Russian transit money? Ha, Ha! Russia never paid anything. So Poland did'nt have to allow them another pipeline. Let the Russians and Germans enjoy the Baltic.

4:02 pm November 11, 2011

Talk-Talk wrote:

Frank Conn wrote: ": maybe 3rd lines: so that would be around 80 bcm a year for three lines? Wow. And what when the Southern Stream goes through eventually"

Sounds like Frank has been hired by the Kremlin Gazprom Bureau (KGB) to spread misinforamtion and confusion. Three lines over the Baltic ? Are you of sound mind ? Baltic is not and has never been a Russian Sea. The North Stream needed permission of other Baltic states to cross their territorial waters. As well, Russia simply does not have enough gas reserves available for all its proposed pipelines including the one for China. Gazprom is facing gas shortages and is trying to contract long term gas supplies from the Azeris. Also, more and more European counries are building LNG facilities to diversify supply sources. There are now 16 countries in the world capable of supplying LNG and in ten years there wil be more. There is worldwide glut of natural gas and Russian gas revenues will keep declining as prices fall and alternative facilities are built worldwide. .

1:20 am November 14, 2011

Peter wrote:

Energy policy is geo-politics, but the argument that this gaspipe doesn't make economic sense is easily countered. It was entirely funded by private money from Gazprom, German, French and Dutch firms.

The key point, a bit overlooked here, is that one must not confuse the stock (gas in the ground, or now shale-gas) with the flow-infrastructure.

In all major infrastructures (electricity, telecommunications, gas) seabed lines are easier to construct than land lines. This is because of easier access when constructing on the seabed (no eminent domain). Yes, you do need permission in territorial waters, but everything outside the 12-mile zone from the coastline, cannot be prohibited, only co-ordinated and some redtape could be temporarily slow down construction. International laws are very clear on that.

Gas pipelines had the extra "feature" of political control over the flow in transit countries. This implied that any shut down in Eastern Europe in a conflict over the price of Russian natural gas, required Western-European countries like Norway and The Netherlands (and to a lesser extent the UK) to ramp up production.

With Nord Stream that political control over the gas flows has vanished for Poland and Ukraine.

One just has to keep in mind, that Western Europe pays world market prices, while the former Warschau Pact countries purchased Russian natural gas far below world market prices, based on old contracts. That was what the conflicts were about.

Russian proven natural gas reserves are extremely vast. Far larger than any nation on earth. Not every field is well developed. Again one should not confuse the stock, with the start of the flow (production wells).

The development of shale gas at todays price levels is new, and it pushes down prices as long as one doesn't include all the additional development costs (additional infrastructure construction, paying damages to the people living in the surroundings of the shale gas production locations) in the gas price, but Gazprom's resources (stock!) are not depleted and far cheaper to expand than turning up shale gas projects,who are still in its infancy and hence, the real costs of shale gas are not yet completely known.

7:59 am November 14, 2011

My name is wrote:

Sounds like Nord Streams German side is busy blogging and
spinning this at all hours of day and night

Anyway you slice it, with shale gas in Central Europe Nord Stream
simply doesn't matter. It's the Maginot Line of energy policy. Obsolete
and useless even before completion date.

12:15 pm November 15, 2011

EU Corruption wrote:

The German crooks can get Russian gas from the Russian crooks without having to rely on the Polish crooks. lol

4:34 pm November 15, 2011

Talk Talk wrote:

Peter wrote: " far cheaper to expand than turning up shale gas projects,who are still in its infancy and hence, the real costs of shale gas are not yet completely known."

How do you knwo if it cheaper to expand exploring and exploiting new gas deposits in the very difficult terrain of the Russian Siberia ? It is a known fact that Russia gas resources in areas already l;inked by pipelines have been developed back in the Soviet times. The cost is unknwon and not very relevant because that state nlo longer exists. But present Russian gas export commitments must be backed by proven and readily deliverable gas reserves, Furthermore, if Russia wants to supply China and develop its LNG capability on the Pacific coast it needs peroven and competitive NEW gas resorces. The proposed China pipeline is VERY expensive and viable only if Russia will have enogh NEW gas to pump to China for at least 20 -30 years. Keep in mind, that Russian gas delivery costs are several times higher than from gas sources in the Persian Gulf, Iran, off Australian coast, etc. and must be written off over long term unnless Russia wants to subsidise China's gas imports for a decade or more. There is a surplus of gas worldwide, the real constraints are in delivery costs to various consuming countries (Europe, Japana, China, etc.)

4:51 pm November 15, 2011

Talk Talk wrote:

Peter wrote: "Russian proven natural gas reserves are extremely vast. Far larger than any nation on earth. Not every field is well developed."

These are genearlities at best, or propaganda at worst. Frist, Russian reserves are estimated at about 22 tp 25% of the worl total, Second, that's not recoverable reserves which depend on cost-effective methods of recovery, gathering, transmission and delivery to markets. Undeveloped fields have little or no infrastructure, - the most costly part of the process. Third, the shale gas deposits are in areas reasonably close to consumers, delivery costs will be low. Fourth, modern large LNG terminals such as those built by the Dutch, etc. can receive tankers from any suppliers. No need to depend on one monopolistic Gazprom. There are now 16 countries capable of delivering LNG gas, in the years to come LNG share will grow exponentially.

5:01 pm November 15, 2011

Gas price or propaganda ? wrote:

Peter wrote: "Western Europe pays world market prices, while the former Warschau Pact countries purchased Russian natural gas far below world market prices, based on old contracts. That was what the conflicts were about."

That's an example of propaganda not based on facts. The Soviet block with its COMECON planning system ceased to exist twenty years ago. You are well behind the times re gas pricing in Europe.. You should use up to date figures of gas import prices in say germany, vs. Italy, vs. Hungary, vs Ukraine vs Moldova.

6:02 am November 16, 2011

Allan Stuttie wrote:

Russia don't need Poland Poland needs Russia if it wasn't for Russian sacrifices Poland would be history

12:58 pm November 16, 2011

William wrote:

Most amusing post above re: Russian sacrificies
Unfortunately Russia is a corrupt third world dictatorship...hard
to take a country seriously when you have to take out an insurance
policy for kidnapping before you do business over there.

2:16 pm November 16, 2011

History lesson wrote:

Soviet Russia was Hitler's ally during early WW2. As the great US General
George Patton once said: "In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks."

7:25 am November 18, 2011

Jan wrote:

I would 100% agree to Mr Sikorski's view but not really to his method. I find it a bit too combative of a Foreign Minister to explain that kind of stuff in public for himself even though his view is correct. There's no point in antagonising the public opinion in Russia. Mr Sikorski, be nice and friendly to the Russians (even if nominally) and let critics and media talk of the waste in public.

3:19 pm November 22, 2011

Learn history wrote:

Allan Stuttie wrote: " if it wasn’t for Russian sacrifices Poland would be history"

If it was not for your ignorance you would know that Russia (in alliance with then Prussia and Austria) divided and occupied the 19th cent. Poland and indeed wanted to make it "a history" by imposing even a new name "Vistulaland". Then history repeated itself when Stalin's Russia - this time in alliance with Hitler - divided and occupied Poland in Sept. 1939. Yes, indxeed Russia tried hard to make Poland and other states in Europe and Asia "a history".

1:13 pm January 11, 2012

poli wrote:

....Poland "do not worry"...produce your own gas and show to Russia and EU what you can do and do NOT rely on them....

2:12 am March 4, 2012

Allan Stuttie wrote:

I dont think Russia needs your business they have so much natural wealth others need them more than they you !!!

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Emerging Europe

Emerging Europe Real Time provides sharp analysis and insight into what’s making news in Central and Eastern Europe. Drawing on the expertise of our reporters in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia and Turkey, the site provides an inside track on economics, politics and business in this emerging part of the European continent.